Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/10/96TAPE #1371 UNAPPROVED DRAFT COUNCIL APPROVED MAY 1 1996 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES APRIL 10, 1996 #0019 #0035 The regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Bremerton was called to order in the City Council Chambers, 239 4th Street, Bremerton, Washington, Wednesday, April 10, 1996, at 5:30 P.M., with Council President John Law presiding. Council members present were Bob Winters, A1 Colvin, Cecil McConnell, Carlos Montgomery, Sherril Huff-Menees, David Farr, Richard Neville. Councilman Lon Overson was absent. Also present were City Attorney Ian Sievers and City Clerk Kathy McCluskey. The meeting opened with the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council President Law and Invocation given by Pastor Robert O'Dell of Victory Chapel Church of God. CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes - March 27, 1996 #AB96-074 M/S/C/U(Neville/Farr) to approve Consent Agenda as presented. CLAIMS/CHECK REGISTERS Vouchers audited and certified by the auditing officer as required by RCW 42.24.080, and those expense reimbursement claims certified as required by RCW 42.24.090, have been recorded on a listing that had been made available to the Council. M/S/C/U(Colvin/Montgomery) on April 10, 1996, the Council does approve for payment those vouchers included and further described as follows: 196614, 196651 through 196822 in the amount of $285,400.05; and Regular Payroll for the period ending 3/31/96, in the amount of $773,010.95. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS Mr. Winters commented on a recent Citizens Cable Advisory Committee meeting where they learned the future in cable is in a transition period due to the change in technology, i.e., fiber optics, and new FCC regulations. It was his hope that members of the public will attend Cable Committee meetings, since they are open to the public (2nd Monday of each month at 5:00 P.M., in the Council Conference Room). Mr. Colvin was pleased to report he has heard some very positive responses from citizens regarding the Spring Clean Up event in the City. The next District #1 Neighborhood meeting is scheduled for TAPE #1371 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 2 of 16 May 16, 7:00 P.M., at the Parks and Recreation Center; with Mayor Lynn Horton as guest speaker. Mr. McConnell reported he was somewhat disappointed that only three people from District #2 attended his Neighborhood Meeting on Tuesday evening. He felt it was important that members of the public take the time to learn more about the Fletcher Wright proposal for development of the downtown waterfront. Mr. Neville announced the next Harrison District meeting will be held at the Canterbury Manor on April 29, 7:30 P.M., where the Harrison District Plan will be discussed. The draft plan will incorporate proposals discussed at three previous public meetings. Copies of the draft plan can be obtained from Ron Hough or Kay Wilson at Department Of Community Development/478-5275- Mr. Law announced the next District #3 Neighborhood Meeting will be held April 16, 7:00 P.M., at the Senior Center. The program for that meeting will be an open agenda to discuss issues that will make Manette an even nicer place to live. MAYOR'8 REPORT Mayor Lynn Horton reminded everyone of the City-wide Spring Clean Up Week April 15-20, which will consist of yard waste collection at Evergreen Park. Olympic Landfill will accept mattresses and upholstered furniture (no appliances) from 8:00AM- 4:30 PM during this same time frame at one half the regular cost of disposal. Also, during this same time there will be a "clunker clean up", and anyone wishing information on that activity can call 478-5223. She extended special thanks to Brem-Air Disposal Inc., and Olympic View Landfill for helping out in this effort. Mayor Horton reported the City entered an international Water Tasting Contest, which drew 35 entrants from around the world, and Bremerton's water came in 6th on the Water Tasting listing of 35 purveyors of water. The #1 entrant was Ames, Iowa. The city of Bremerton was one of the few, who were ranked, that had an untreated water source. Mayor Horton attended the ex-POW ceremony at Bataan Park on April 6, which was a very nice event and it was good to pause and remember some of the people who did sacrifice for our community and country. She extended a special "thank you" to Bob Sauter for helping to host that event. In regard to the Scotch broom issue, the City is in the process of cutting down plants along the Warren Avenue Bridge, which is being done by hand with some assistance from a mower. She will be seeking donations of rhododendron and azalea plants as replacements TAPE #1371 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 3 of 16 for the Scotch broom. Mayor Horton read a Proclamation proclaiming May 1, 1996 as LOYALTY DAY in the City of Bremerton. The Mayor reported the City is removing trees along Ivy Green Cemetery and a new sidewalk is being constructed. New trees have been planted on the southern portion of the cemetery and more will be planted once the sidewalk is completed. Some resurfacing work will be done to the intersection of Naval and 13th Street. Lastly, she announced on April 13, 1:00 - 3:00 PM Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is hosting a stroll through the non-industrial area to view the beautiful trees and the City's Urban Tree Forester will discuss the species identification, emplacement, history and some tree biology. PUBLIC RECOGNITION Gordy Byrd related his being knocked down and into the traffic lanes on Wheaton Way by a bicyclist. He urged people riding bicycles to follow the rules of the road, which includes riding bicycles on roads, not on sidewalks. John Thomas thanked Mayor Horton for starting the removal of the Scotch broom along approaches to the Warren Avenue bridge. Gerald Fitzpatrick, 1113 Scott Avenue, stated he was pleased to see the crime rate in Bremerton decrease and police officers reacting much more quickly, which he attributes to the influence of the City's new Police Chief. He was very pleased about the way Police officers interact with children, particularly his, in a very positive manner Carol Atkinson, Bremerton Main Street Association, thanked the following businesses, who purchased banners supporting the Olympic Torch Run: Vitro, Lockhead, Northwestern Bank, Washington Mutual Bank, Dispute Resolution Of Kitsap County, KPS, United Way, The Sun, Ole Bank Antiques, KITZ Radio, Walmart Of Port Orchard and Laine Technology. 7A - INFORMATION ITEM ONLY: TCI CABLE RATE INCREASE, #AB96-075 Patrick McDonald, TCI General Manager, will present the proposed 6/1/96 cable rate increase. These rates are not subject to Council approval. This is an information item for the Council and public. Paula Johnston, Tax and License Inspector, explained it was the time of year when the cable companies apply for a rate increase for cable television. Both TCI and Falcon have applied for rate increases and a representative from TCI will explain their proposal to Council. She pointed out every year the FCC puts out new TAPE #1371 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 4 of 16 rulings in regards to how the City, as a franchise authority, resides over rate approval. This year TCI has opted to use another new form (1240), which allow for rate increases after giving the City 90 days notification. But, the City retains the right to order refunds if it is determined, after a formal review, that one is necessary. The staff report and review has not been completed due to the quick timeline and both companies have applied for a rate increase. It was felt that the City Council needed to hear TCI's proposal publicly before it goes into effect even though Council has no formal authority over having the new rates go into effect June 1. Basically, everything is going up and the rate increase is substantial. The Basic service rate increase is going up 16% from 1995. Expanded Basic service is going up 22% and all of the equipment and installation charges are going up as well. Falcon Cable, who serves approximately 100 subscribers in the City, but serves over 20,000 subscribers in the County, has a rate increase proposal of 3% for Basic and Expanded basis. Ms. Johnston pointed out the rate table history in the Agenda documentation is based on rates that include State and local taxes, which is different from the rate card, which shows a base rate without taxes or franchise fees. Patrick McDonald, General Manger of TCI, handed out and discussed a booklet that contained the following information: Bremerton Rate Change Helps Offset Higher Costs, Regulatory Background, TCI Cablevision Rate Adjustment, TCI Rate History, TCI Service Area Comparison, Cable Television continues to be one of today's best values in entertainment, news and education, TCI community involvement and new products, Rate Information - Basic (including optional cable services), Expanded Basic Service Rate Information, (including optional cable services). Gordy Byrd asked if he understood correctly that the proposed cable rates did not have to be brought to the City's attention, since they had no approval authority? Mr. McDonald stated they are required to notify the City of any adjustment in rates. The proposed rates are formatted under the FCC guidelines and if there is anything found with those rates that are inaccurate, changes can be made and the Franchise authority does have the authority to adjust the rates by doing refunds to the subscribers. But, by taking a rate lower than the maximum permitted rate as deemed by the FCC, there should not be any problems with the rates as proposed. Elizabeth Buell questioned the source for the 38% inflation rate? Mr. McDonald explained the 38% of the $1.20 increase was due to inflation factors as well as FCC Commission Fee, External Cost (programming, Interest, Effect of Rate Difference True Up and Effect of Rate Difference in Gap. Mrs. Buell asked if the rate TAPE #1371 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 5 of 16 increase would affect commercial accounts? Mr. McDonald stated there would be no impact on commercial accounts. Also, the rates made available in their Cable Extra Campaign would stay the same as well. Mrs. Buell asked the amount of increase to the Basic service? Mr. McDonald stated the proposed increase for Basic service amounts to $1.20, and the proposed increase to Expanded Basic service would amount to $1.87. A subscriber with both those service would see a $3.07 increase. Ms. Johnston pointed out Mr. McDonald's description of current regulation rates and the June 1st regulated rates are comparing "apples and oranges". The current regulated rates include the City's tax and in order to show the subscribers their true increase, the same needs to be done for the proposed June 1st increases, which amount to $12.24 for Basic service ($1.65 increase) and an increase of $2.35 for Expanded service. Mr. McDonald explained the taxes and fees associated with the cable bill are not determined by TCI Cablevision. The City of Bremerton has a local tax on cable television; however, Kitsap County does not have such a tax. Ms. Johnston emphasized the discussion is addressing just Bremerton rates and the $10.59 charge for current Basic service included tax, but the $11.79 rate does not include tax and is misleading to tell people the rate would only increase by $1.20 on the base rates. Roy McInnis 2711 Maple Street, asked why doesn't TCI have a Black Entertainment Channel? Mr. McDonald explained the rebuild activity TCI is engaged in has begun in Kitsap County and they are looking forward to make similar upgrades in the cities of Bremerton and Poulsbo. A rebuild is an entirely new cable system (with the removal of the old system) that allows them to bring in additional channels. In that rebuild portion, Black Entertainment television is included on the Basic channel lineup and as they move into Bremerton it will be included on the Expanded Basic service. At the current system level in Bremerton, it is filled to capacity and no additional programs can be added. The Weather Channel will also be available following the rebuild. John Thomas asked when would Bremerton's rebuild be completed? Mr. McDonald stated TCI is currently in a franchise extension (one year) with the City of Bremerton. As they complete franchise negotiations with the City, the details of that rebuild will be made public. At this point, they are under a one-year time frame with the City to complete the franchise negotiations, which will extend the time before the rebuild can be completed. Kitsap County was the first area they were able to rebuild. Gene Hart, 2015 Trenton Avenue, asked what would be the earliest and latest date when the Bremerton rebuild would be complete? Mr. McDonald explained when the franchise period is 10 years you can make a larger investment. His most optimistic guess when the TAPE #1371 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 6 of 16 rebuild would be completed would 1-4 years. What they are facing now is Kitsap County was available at a time when there wasn't a lot of rebuild activity in the different cable and telecommunication industries, but because of the laws passing in 1996, there is more interest in rebuilding and it is a matter of Kitsap County's rebuilt cost was approximately 10 million dollars and he anticipates Bremerton's rebuild would be much the same. Mr. Byrd stated if it takes 4 years, where would the 10 million dollars come from and who would be paying it? Mr. McDonald stated the 10 million dollars would be an investment TCI makes in the community to rebuild the cable plant. Typically, additional services would be provided at a different rate to recoup that investment. Mr. Byrd asked how much more would subscribers be asked to pay? Mr. McDonald stated those selecting the additional services would be generating the funds. Mr. Winters asked the number of TCI subscribers in Kitsap County and the City of Bremerton? Mr. McDonald stated there are approximately 9,700 County subscribers and approximately 8,400 Bremerton subscribers. Mr. Winters asked how much can they expect each resident to pay more on their cable bill after implementing the new rebuild program? Mr. McDonald stated drawing on their experience with Kitsap County, and it should be similar under regulation for Bremerton, typically no increased rates are added to Basic service and in some instances there might even be a decrease on the Basic Tier. The Expended Basic Tier typically sees a $1.50 increase when new channels are added. The third tier, which is not yet available in Kitsap County, but will be developed, is a tier of optional services of 6-10 channels at another rate that is yet to be determined. Also, Pay-For-View and movie services also go to support that added cost. Mr. Winters asked if Mr. McDonald was aware City taxes were calculated in the current regulated rate, or was it a misprint in the material provided to Council? Mr. McDonald stated Ms. Johnston was correct in her assessment of the rates. Mr. Winters asked if the rest of the information in the booklet provided to Council is very accurate or might there be omissions? Mr. McDonald explained the information in the book is exact and the operator selector rates include the taxes and to get the base rate for subscribers they backed those taxes out. The tax is a little different for either equipment or basic services, so it does impact, by a couple of cents, the rates. The rates filed in Form 1240 are the operator selected rates, which do include taxes. Mr. Winters asked the actual programming cost increases that TCI experienced since the last rate increase (July 1995)? Mr. McDonald pointed out that information in the booklet. Mr. Neville noted several statements in the information presented by TCI, such as "cable television continues to be one of todays' TAPE #1371 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 7 of 16 best values in entertainment, news and education", and "their goal to rate the overall quality of cable T.V. programming through continued support of new and existing cable channels". Mr. Neville pointed out Bremerton area subscribers have experienced poor channel quality on channels 14 and 15 due to the location of the microwave dish for several years and those are premium networks where the subscribers are paying for poor quality transmission. He asked if the new cable plan intends to fix such problems? Mr. McDonald explained there are several different technologies to deliver the premium networks that require a converter box or a decoder, which tend to soften the picture some. If someone had a particular problem and were experiencing poor quality on those channels, he would be happy to have them checked out. With installation of fiber optics, it increases the dependability of a quality picture. Mr. Neville asked if the new fiber optic system will eliminate the poor quality picture he experiences on channels 19 and 20? Mr. McDonald stated fiber optics will help, but TCI will also be moving the head location site to a new location away from some of the interference they currently experience. Mr. Neville referenced the TCI Service Comparison Chart and pointed out Bremerton was higher than Kitsap County for Basic service and asked what factors go into figuring the formula? Mr. McDonald explained the factors are some specific local area computations, such as median income for the different franchising areas, franchise related costs, operational cost, equipment cost and other operational issues for those area. On Expended Basic, the City of Bremerton is lower than Kitsap County. They have lowered the rate below the maximum permitted rate and when they do cap those rates some of the differences do not appear for the rates between the two area. Mr. Neville referenced the inflation factor and it seemed to him in 1995 when TCI came before Council they had a rate increase to cover inflation, but now they are showing collecting years 1994 and 1995 at 2.96%, and they want to go for 1995-1996 at 2.61%, and to project into the future collecting 2.61% in advance. Mr. McDonald explained the FCC 1240 filing takes into account a year period and the FCC 1210 filings take historical data. Until the inflation rate is identified for a particular time frame by the federal government, that rate increase was not factored into the 1210 filings. The last adjustment that was taken for inflation was July of 1994, with the last filing. The process is to get to a single adjustment each June, and that will take place on a year time frame going forward into the future. To get to that point, there are issues from the 1210 form that were not taken into consideration that this true up and gap periods specifically go back and define and adjustment. There is also information in the 1240 filing that specifies that amount and the specifics to that adjustment period. Mr. Neville stated he also finds information in the booklet comparing "apples and oranges" where all costs in 1994 were lower. He asked was that because the FCC, in 1994, put a TAPE #1371 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 8 of 16 regulation on how much the cable companies were allowed to charge? Mr. McDonald stated at that time the FCC decided to regulate cable television rates. In that instance, the FCC initiated some regulations to decrease rates and take it down to a point and then allow increases for costs and expenses of programming. The comparison is to show rates in January, which was pre-regulation and to the point now. Even with this increase and the previous adjustments, they are getting back to some of the rates that were in place in January 1994. And, Basic services are not much more than what they were in January of 1994. Mr. Neville stated in the past TCI helped out the community and was training some youth from the Bremerton community. He asked if TCI planned to continue that kind of activity in the future? Mr. McDonald stated they are always excited to work with youth and he would support continuing that kind of program. Mrs. Huff-Menees complimented Mr. McDonald on his bringing the information to Council and answering questions to the best of his ability. Even though the City does not have any approval authority for the proposed rate increase, bringing the information to the public is of benefit. Mr. McDonald stated TCI believes the proposed rates are fair and reasonable and he appreciated having the opportunity to present the information. Mr. Colvin expressed his appreciation that TCI is willing to work with our youth in a positive manner. Mr. Montgomery asked if once the rebuild is completed, will TCI ask their subscribers what kinds of programs they would like to see on the expanded channels? Mr. McDonald stated every day TCI receives customer feedback on the kinds of programming they would like offered to them, and they keep that data. They also conduct surveys from their subscribers. Some programs are brought on because of arrangements made as part of retransmission consent, i.e. FX was one of those programs. As they move into the rebuild, the capacity is so large more channel options will be the norm rather than having to drop channels in such a situation. There are also "must carry" rules. If a local broadcaster decides to put up shop in Seattle or Bremerton and qualifies on the FCC as a broadcaster, they can claim "must carry" on the cable TV system, in which case TCI would have to drop a network to add them when they are filled to capacity with the channels they offer. Mr. Montgomery stated he did not recall every receiving a questionnaire in his billing. Mr. McDonald stated as they approach the rebuilt in Bremerton, they will conduct a customer survey for information on channels and choices they would like available. Mr. McOonnell stated in his opinion channels 19 and 20 have poor picture quality and hoped people were not paying premium channel TAPE #1371 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 9 of 16 rates for poor picture quality. He was also concerned over the poor transmission quality on channel 13. Mr. McDonald offered to have Mr. McConnell's cable service checked to make sure he was getting the best possible signal. Distortion of channels can be caused by faulty cable hook up in side the house even though it is getting a strong, clear signal out side of the house. In reference to Channel 13, distortion may be caused by signals being processed by both the channel 13 network and TCI cable service. Mr. McConnell asked if TCI is required to carry info commercial channels? Mr. McConnell stated he was not aware of a specific info commercial channel; however, they do carry network channels that lease out part of their time for information programming that typically broadcast on late night hours and weekends. The networks do not control content on those channels, but they are used as methods of increasing revenues for their own channel by selling those time slots. Mr. Winters noted on the east coast of the United States there are about 120 channels available to cable customers. He asked the number of new channels to be added as part of the rebuild? Mr. McDonald explained some of the technical aspect of the rebuild that would result in roughly 78 channels on a 750 system. The future now has digital compression, so the opportunity for more channels is very large. Their competitive future will be based on matching those cable services and programming with their customers. Basic and Expanded services will ideally be a low cost provider for those services and then on the selected service beyond that to over a multitude of different programming, with high speed cable data being one of those, telephone service and additional programming. TCI's future is not only in video, but additional services. TCI is proud of its relationship with Bremerton and he expects the franchising will move along smoothly. Mr. Winters stated at the last Cable Advisory Committee meeting they had a demonstration as to how fiber optics are durable, smaller and easier to install. It was his understanding that a rebuild did not require a lot of wire replacement and it would involve the fiber optic lines being set on top of existing lines. Mr. McDonald stated in a rebuild situation, they will string fiber optic cable to specific areas within the community. Next, they replace the cable on the power and telephone poles with a new cable that then goes to specific housing areas and even the "drops" on houses are replaced. This would also involve replacing underground cable where the services is brought to developments through underground trenches. Mr. MontqomerV questioned the process for installing a new "drop" to houses at the time of the rebuild? Mr. McDonald explained they will replace the "drop" to the house and the outlets that go into the individual rooms. TAPE #1372 TAPE #1372 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 10 of 16 Mr. Montgomery noted he put in his own cable wire within his home and did not want someone drilling into his walls to install new cable? Mr. McDonald stated Mr. Montgomery's cable system would still work, but with the new system they want to assure, when digital technology is available, that the signal needs to be clean and crisp and well connected since the signal will not degrade but will disappear, if there is a faulty connection. Mr. Montgomery asked what the cost would be per foot for new wiring? Mr. McDonald stated typically it would cost 32 cents per foot. President Law questioned the number of channels to be dedicated to public access programming? Mr. McDonald stated if programming demands for public access exceed one channel, they will work with the City to make sure subscriber needs are met and that might mean removing program from the line up to allow additional access channels. Under the terms of the initial agreement, when programming exceeds one public access channel there is provision to provide additional public access channels. President Law asked the City Clerk if the City's current contract with TCI included the provision for increased public access channels when the need is identified? Kathleen McCluskey, City Clerk, stated yes, the current contract includes a clause for increases based upon the amount of use, which means we could 2-3 access channels, but would require dropping some other program. Mr. McDonald emphasized TCI has been very supportive of the cable access program and the localism is what identifies their cable company different from other service providers. Mr. Winters called Mike McCallister to the podium? Mike McCallister stated in his opinion, the Bremerton area is receiving poor service from TCI. Compared with other areas like the cities of Everett or Seattle the Bremerton area has very few selection options. And, when his cable reception is bad, he is told it is due to different maladies, such as sun spots. He is paying a premium price for a very minimal cable service. He did not like the idea of paying a month ahead for bad service. When he calls TCI about his concerns, they suggest if he switched over to VIACOM or FALCON, they would have to adopt their electrical hook ups and then redo all the revamps. In discussions with TCI over the past four years, they indicated fiber optics were only a year away. He raised the question "when will it actually happen?" President Law encouraged Mr. McCallister to meet with Mr. McDonald to discuss his concerns. 8A - ORDINANCE (FIRST READING) ADOPTING INTERIM LAND USE PERMIT REGULATIONS, #AB96-076 ESHB 1724, adopted during the 1995 Legislative Session, mandated land use regulatory reform by local government with the goal of streamlining and consolidating the permit process. TAPE #1372 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 11 of 16 The proposed ordinance adopts rules which consolidate permit review, sets deadlines of approval and limits the number of public hearings that may be required. The interim rules will be replaced by permanent development regulations in the Zoning Code after policy discussions have been concluded. Ian Sievers, City Attorney, stated one of the primary purposes of ESHB 1724 was to reduce duplication and delay in local government permitting processing, including appeals. The approach taken by the Legislature was to mandate cities and counties, planning under the Act, to formally adopt an integrated and expedited local permit processing procedure. He emphasized these procedures do not apply to legislative actions, such as Comprehensive Plans, sub-area plans and development and regulation text amendments. One of the other reasons why actions need to be taken is because the City has the option to include certain actions, which would have otherwise been included in the definition of Permit Project, and are listed under Section 1 of the ordinance. Section 1 of the ordinance adopts, on an interim basis, the consolidated process that was required by the Act. Principally, it contains a number of milestones to keep the process moving along and to keep the applicant informed and includes a notice of application deadline, determination of completeness and a completion of the project decision, which is all to be carried out within a 120 day cap. The deadlines are new to local governments in processing permits. The ordinance also contains an optional process where an applicant can have all of their permits relating to a single project consolidated into a single approval and hearing process. Section 2 of the ordinance is one of the key changes to local permitting, that is to expedite things there would be only one hearing on the record and one closed hearing. In the past, numerous public hearings have been held, which has frustrated some developers. The approach taken in the interim ordinance for the State law, is to basically adopt what is currently in place as close as possible and still comply with State law. Therefore, the Planning Commission has been designated as the "open hearing" and the City Council as the "closed hearing". The City Council hearing will either be an appeal or simply a closed hearing on the Planning Commission record. Under Part (2) of Section 2, those decisions will still have a full evidential hearing before the Planning Commission and then the City Council is free to make their own decision from the record. These would be those incidences where the decision is vested in the Council, for instance on a rezone that has to be adopted by a Council approved Ordinance, and plat decisions have to be adopted by Council in the form of a Resolution. Since Council will have the decision, they will reply TAPE #1372 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 12 of 16 on the Planning Commission's record, but that decision will be Council's on the record. Under Section 3, segment (3), projects currently requiring Planning Commission approval, but subject to Council appeal - In this section, there is a burden of proof that must be met by the person raising the appeal from the Planning Commission's decision, and adopted grounds whereby Council can over turn the Planning Commission's decision and would be based on the Planning Commission's record. This will grant considerable deference to the Planning Commission's decision. The final section deals with the consolidation of environmental review in the permit process. The one exception to the one open meeting hearing is for an appeal of a Determination Of Significance. Council is not required to have any environmental procedural appeals, Bremerton does adopt an appeal for threshold determination of either Significance or Nonsignificance, so the new rules were included in the Ordinance. The last Section sets the 90-day period, which should allow enough time for the debate discussion on how to conduct these hearings and appeals, which appeals to have at all is still an open question. Public comment - none. Mr. Neville referenced Section 2, paragraph 3, of the ordinance and asked if he understood correctly that if someone was not at the Planning Commission's public hearing, they could not file an appeal? Mr. Sievers stated that was correct, but it was not mandated by the State. The intent was to try and decide which parties would be in a zone of protected interest to have enough standing to bring an appeal rather than just some interested citizen, who may not even be a citizen of Bremerton. He included that formula from the Growth Hearings Board formula on who may file and appeal. Mr. Farr asked if this ordinance is passed and in effect, how will the legal record of the Planning Commission hearing be handled? Mr. Sievers explained the Planning Commission develops an adequate record and the question then is how is that is transmitted to Council. The proposed ordinance indicates Council make its decision based on the Planning Commission's Findings and Conclusions, which they currently receive, and a taped or written transcript of those actions. Council would also receive a packet of exhibits and documentary evidence submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. Farr stated under Section 1, the definition of permits not included in this new regulations would include: street vacations, approvals related to public areas, lot lines adjustments and building or other construction permits or similar administrative approvals categorically exempt from environmental TAPE #1372 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 13 of 16 rule. He asked would they be handled the same way under the present system? Mr. Sievers stated there are no mandatory changes, but in the instance of a Building Official decision on a building permit,there is an appeal before the Building Code Review Board and the intent is to retain that process. Mr. Farr asked if Mr. Sievers foresaw any instances where the City Council is the final decision making body where an applicant will have the choice to designate a specific type of hearing? Mr. Sievers stated not in this ordinance. It may be an option that Council might wish to consider during this interim period time prior to adoption of the permanent procedures. Mr. McConnell stated the proposed ordinance does not contain any provision for people that might miss a Planning Commission hearing because they were out-of-town, which could shut them out from any part of the procedure before the City Council. Mr. Slevers stated that is a possibility, and he doubted it would be possible to coordinate a hearing schedule so that everyone within 300 feet of a specific site could be present. Mr. McConnell referenced Section 2, paragraph 3, and expressed concern that Council would have to brush up on the law in order to make a decision. Mr. Sievers noted he believed Council would mostly rely on subsection (b) of Section 2, paragraph 3. Also, miss interpretation of procedures or the law may often times relate to Council's own ordinances, so he felt Council would be well qualified to say they don't apply to a particular definition or procedure correctly. Mr. McConnell was also concerned that members of the public would not be able to plead their case directly before an elected official. He sees that as cutting them off from their elected representative. He doubted any of the Council members were qualified in the law as the proposed ordinance requires. He asked the total time that would be required to provide a total legal transcript of a Planning Commission hearing? He noted if a video tap was required, it would mean having Council members spend 4-5 hours viewing the tape. Mr. Winters stated he did not recall seeing any documentation during the 1995 Legislative Session that clearly identified the intent of ESHB 1724. Mr. Sievers noted he provided Council with a codified copy of the State Statute under Chapter 36.70B. The principal outline of what is required is listed in section 110; and with some consolidation the proposed ordinance closely follows those mandated elements of the procedure. Mr. Winters stated in his interpretation through streamlining the process it would be taking some of the rights away from the public. He asked if an attorney would be required to be present at Planning Commission meetings and who will be financially responsible for that legal service; and can the City legally justify the cost of a Court Reporter or video crew? Mr. Sievers stated he was not sure that an attorney would be required to attend Planning Commission meetings TAPE #1372 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 14 of 16 any more than is the current need. If the Planning Commission's Chair is too restrictive on evidence, it could present a problem. The current recording record is acceptable and is currently used in court cases. But, the unresolved issue is how to get that information to Council and it may be using a video may be the best solution. The requirement of record identified in the ordinance is taken out of the State statute on what kind of proposed record hearing for environmental reviews or appeals. Mr. Colvim asked if the new law required an attorney attend Planning Commission meetings and if not, how will the legal ramifications be taken into consideration? Mr. Sievers stated the presence of an attorney is not required and hearings will be conducted in the same manner as they are currently. It may be important to have an attorney present to control the hearings and we may want more rulings from the Chair to shorten the meetings because of the need to produce some kind of record and that could get expensive. Mr. Colvin asked for clarification of the statement from the ordinance "all those that participated or were present at the first hearing"? Mr. Sievers explained those people who participated on the record would have the right to make an appeal. Mr. Colvin stated he felt there should be extenuating provisions for extenuating circumstances in the event someone was not able to attend a specific hearing, i.e. people being out-of-town, being ill, etc. Mr. Sievers stated there was nothing in the ordinance to address that issue and the current system does allow the public to give input before both the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Colvin stated in his opinion the law was poorly written. Mr. Sievers re-emphasized one of the mandates of the State law is there will be one record hearing and the second hearing will be closed to any additional testimony. Council could possibly expand the standing of persons who can actually file an appeal, but they would have to make their argument based on that record. Mr. Montgomery asked who would be responsible for making the video and who would be responsible for the cost? Mr. Sievers noted currently the Planning Commission meetings are not video taped. Mr. Winters reminded Council Planning Commission meetings are audio taped. Mr. Montgomery pointed out an audio tape does not tell the whole story because you cannot see those giving testimony. Sievers agreed with Mr. Montgomery that it was difficult to judge testimony from an audio tape. Mrs. Muff-Menees stated she would assume, in regard to Mr. McConnell's concern about someone being out of town, that the same procedures that are currently in place would be allowed in terms of written comment. She believes part of what is proposed is already being carried out and possibly Council was over reacting to some of recommended changes. She had no problem with the proposed #1094 TAPE #1372 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 15 of 16 ordinance and would lend her support to it as written. Mr. Farr called John Thomas up to the podium. John Thomas stated the City has a good history of missing people on notification for public hearings. He did not feel it was right to shut out someone, if they were not aware of the first hearing. He had a personal experience with a land use issue 40 feet from his home and the only way he became aware of the proposed action was to walk across the street and read the notice that was posted on the property. Mr. McConnell stated he is supportive of the consolidated permit process, but he did not like the hearing part that was tied to that process. Mr. Montgomery stated in response to Mr. Thomas's comment, the City is required by law to post notices in newspapers, on the subject site and send notices out to the property owners within a certain number of feet from the site. Mr. Sievers stated that was correct, according to the City's Zoning Code. Mr. Farr stated this issue was discussed in a joint meeting with the Planning Commission and some of the same questions came up at that time. He noted the proposed ordinance is an interim regulation. M/S/C(Farr/Huff-Menees) to approve Ordinance, on first reading, implementing interim Land Use Permit procedures pursuant to ESHB 1724, Ch. 347 Laws of 1995; and amending Bremerton Municipal Code Title 21. Vote on motion: Motion carried. In Favor: Overson, Neville, Farr, Huff-Menees, Law, Montgomery Opposed: McConnell, Colvin Abstain: Winters TAPE #1372 City Council Reg. Mtg. Minutes April 10, 1996 Page 16 of 16 With no further business meeting adjourned at 7:42 P.M.. KATHLEEN L. McCLUSKEY, City Cl~k ~~E./~ Council President City of Bremerton KLM/JL/me cc: Normal Distribution File/Vault